"Sportsmanlike players win over 1.7 million more games than average players every day," states the narrator. He goes on to add that teams with no ragers (players who "go full five-year-old" when the game doesn't go their way) average a 54 percent win rate, while three ragers pushes that rate down to 46 percent.

The video and accompanying blog post don't offer any further details on how sportsmanlike behavior or raging has been defined, but they are likely to correspond to in-game chat log analysis, reports for negative behavior, voice chat abuse, and so on, basically, all the things Riot uses in its player-based moderation system, the Tribunal.

The broad trend makes sense. League of Legends is a team-oriented game where you are playing with strangers or friends and usually attempting to destroy a thing called a Nexus located in the opposing team's base. Bickering rather than coordinating has an impact on the ability of a team to set up ambushes and to coordinate fights.

The video also notes that Riot's research suggests "a direct correlation between a team's behavior and the gold they are capable of earning in a match." The gold comes mainly from killing things on the map (minions, heroes, turrets...), and so again it makes sense that bad behavior and a lack of team cohesion would impact that.

In case doing things for the good of the team is unappealing as a motivator, Riot makes sure to point out that the benefits of teamwork have an impact on an individual level too. Positive behavior records tally up with a win rate around 10 percent over the average, while those with a history of reports can expect 35 percent below average as their win rate.

Negative behavior is an ongoing challenge for massively multiplayer online games, and this is not the first time Riot has experimented with ways to reduce it. According to a report in the June issue of PC Gamer, there was a talk at the 2013 Game Developers Conference where game designer Jeremy Lin revealed how League of Legends was experimenting with color and player behavior.

The study involved showing players' different messages before their matches started using either red, white, or blue writing. When "teammates perform worse if you harass them after a mistake" popped up in red, negative behavior dropped 8.34 percent during the ensuing match. "Players who cooperate with their teammates win more games" shown in blue correlated with a 5.13 percent drop.

83 Reader Comments

The problem is that LoL is poorly designed in the first place, designed to enrage players as they lose.

The reality is that people who lose more often are more likely to get angry about it. So you'd expect players who lose more often than average to also be angrier than average.

Study shows... nothing of value.

How is it designed to enrage players? Like i've stated in previous posts, even on the precarious edge of defeat, I've won many games just by focusing on careful teamplay. Also I think you've got it backwards, people lose more often BECAUSE they're angrier than average. They rage because they're losing, and then they lose because they rage. To quote Fat Bastard, "it's a vicious cycle."

The problem is that LoL is poorly designed in the first place, designed to enrage players as they lose.

LoL is a skill-based, competitive team game. It suffers from the same "flaw" as every other skill-based, competitive team game: if you lose, it's solely because your team performed less well than the enemy team. Since it's a team game, some people will always try to blame their teammates for this.

To be fair, this isn't a study, it's a promotional video with modern style infographics and very little substance. I really wish they'd release the tons of raw numbers and statistics they must have, but that's unlikely to happen.

A difference of 8% points doesn't seem all that big to me. Since the success rate of the two groups are both so close to 50%, that must means there is a huge standard deviation for both of them as well (unless this game has really well-balanced match-making system). This variance would completely swamp the difference in mean value making it imperceptible to players in their real-world interactions with the game.

They have an almost perfectly balanced matchmaking system. Over 2 billion games are played each month. That means enough players to create balanced teams, and plenty of analysis to back up their statistics. What the 8% means, is that your attitude towards your teammates and your ability to work with them increases your chances of winning by 8%. Since you playing with and against players of the same skill level, that 8% becomes a big deal.

Not sure why this was posted as news here. It's a glorified advertisement for LoL.

Anyway, there's basically no information backing up their claims and as people have pointed out already the study most likely had massive flaws.

Games like LoL and Dota have a unique advantage for studying behavior amongst players because of the depth of each game and the amount of communication happening each game (through both pings and chat.) Plus they have hugely active communities who are more than willing to sort their players for them through reports and honors. The sheer size of their data pool (hundreds of thousands of players and hundreds of millions of games) let's them pull a whole bunch of statistics out. The video may have been presented badly for types like us who know how to read studies and understand the specifics of how studies should be done, but given that they're trying to speak to the lowest common denominator of players (in the US, mind you) it was done ok.

LoL's community is an utter cesspit that drives away anyone thinking about getting into the game. I tried it for an afternoon, but during that afternoon I'd been called everything under the sun... It's almost as bad as the WoW community forums...

I used to play the game, solo with custom games only with bots...but they took that option out this past patch to where you don't get any IP points or experience now from solo games.

The reason I only play solo is that 90% of every human player I've played with on LoL have been reprehensible human beings. I mean, it's suppose to be fun, right? But every game I've played with others usually has someone yelling at everyone else and when you get someone telling me to "go kill myself" because I didn't get to a lane fast enough...well, then it's not really a fun game to me.

Now, why did I only play solo games besides that? It was like solitaire to me. Was nice, relaxing, solo play. I even spent money with Riot to by RP points a few times, so it's not like Riot wasn't making any money off of me. But now, the game is dead to me as I'll always be stuck at level 26, not gaining any IP points so I can't get new characters I can goof around with or points to buy more upgrades etc.

Oh well, guess there are other games out there. But them changing this will never get me to ever play with other people on that service. Seriously, they are the worst bunch of idiots I've ever seen. It's not fun to me, it's not something I can just "ignore" and "don't let it bother you". It's stressful and not at all fun...so why would I want to subject myself to that?

Also they don't say what comparison of the same players lose or win matches in which bickering happened versus when positive words / no complaints happened.

Does the average player lose more matches when bickering happens compared to their successful matches. Was the player already losing by the time the bickering happened? Was the bickering initiated by players with histories of abusive attitudes?

Sounds a bit bogus to me. Surely the fact that the team is winning will mean that people are less likely to rage, producing the correlation between winning and non-raging? In other words the devs have it backwards.

I was thinking the same thing. Luckily, many players probably dont get it, so when the game says that non-ragers win more, they just accept it and some change their behavior.

How is this in any way not completely obvious to anyone who has ever played any type of co-operative game or sport? A football player with an IQ in the double digits knows that working together will improve play and win more games. 8%, 10%, 2% doesnt matter. We are all taught from a very young age that when you work together as a team, your team performs better.

To be honest, in 14 years of playing online (PC only), I have never experienced a game with more ragers than LoL. I don't get it; is it something about this game? I haven't played it myself; I had no interest in it after seeing my clan torn apart by the behavior this game spawned.

I think its the time commitment involved, which is huge for the medium. A 30 or 45 minute match in which constant attention is required for victory? In most multiplayer games you can drop and have someone replace you, or you attentiveness can vary (I'm thinking as a Rogue player in WoW). LoL is like being a healer in a 25 man raid in WoW, only everyone has that amount of responsibility, and there's a very good chance that few if any of your fellow players are ready for it.

LMAO, time commitment? 30-40 min? HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When I was 13 I used to play 4 hour long matches of C&C Tiberian Sun. Currently, I play COD BLOPS2 zombies. 4 player co-op FPS games that last anywhere from 3-8 hours per match. The only breaks you get are when someone is kind enough to hold a zombie at the end of a round. Even then there is a good chance they lose track of it or it respawns and kills you before you get back from the bathroom or smoke break or whatever. Ive never played a game like it. One mistake and 3 or 4 hours worth of gameplay are gone and wasted. No saves, no restarts. One idiot who wont listen or does his own thing and you might as well not even play. There are rage quitters, but nothing like Ive heard of in LoL. I have a feeling it is not so much the time commitment involved as it is the type of person that is drawn to that type of game, just happens to be the type to rage as well, more often then others.

Also, maybe because you can't hear tone over the internet or because a lot of the players are younger, I don't think they're capable of taking negative criticism at all. For example, I could say something as simple as "That was a dumb play" and be accused of raging and being negative. If that kind of remark really hurts a player, I would love to see that player in the real life, make a mistake at his or her job.

That negative criticism is likely part of the problem. Its probably is one of the contributing factors towards the poisonous aspect of any on-line game community. It really sounds to me like your so apathetic that you can't or don't care to see or understand how that sounds to the other person. What you see as criticism other would see as an insult.

It only hurts everyone that so many gamers seem to have this attitude of you must be an expert or your crap. That other guy could be new to the game, having an off day, trying an unfamiliar class/character, or learning to play the game without blindly obeying the orders of other gamers who don't care if he is there or not. This is a big reason why I try to stay away from end games like League of Legends and the end game areas of MMO's. A lot of people freak out when the match/dungeon run doesn't fix the community approved script.

Many would probably find that constructive criticism would have a much better outcome in the long run. For example, "These kinds of skills and tactics have worked great for me to counter those kinds of moves and attacks."

One other thing,. Do you like League of Legends? Then the reports of people leaving due to the attitude of the community should concern everyone who likes that game. As soon as the number of new players drops below the number of old players leaving the game begins to die off. Sooner that happens the sooner you're left wishing for more and having to settle for a lame knock off.

A lot of PvP matches can be or are decided before the match ends. I lost track of how many time in a World of Warcraft PvP match someone would start complaining as soon as the other team got one point more then us. Then to rest of the team jumps on. And that is when match was lost. It doesn't matter how much time there is on the clock.

Remember that defeatist attutude the alliance had? Care to guess how many PvP matches were lost before they started because of it? I wouldn't. Its likely in the thousands.

This is exactly why you see sports teams doing their team chants on the sidelines or in the locker rooms. They know winning starts with the right frame of mind. Ragers and trolls don't have it or want it.

One other thing,. Do you like League of Legends? Then the reports of people leaving due to the attitude of the community should concern everyone who likes that game. As soon as the number of new players drops below the number of old players leaving the game begins to die off. Sooner that happens the sooner you're left wishing for more and having to settle for a lame knock off.

The whole point of this article is that statistics > anecdotal reports, for example of "leaving due to the community".

For hard numbers I advise you to tune in in two weeks where League sold out the entire LA LAKERS stadium for their season finals in under an hour.

It remains the most played game on the planet by active peak and concurrent user count, and as long as that's true and as long as they continue to work on player behaviour incentives (which is the goal of the study), no one could call League dying.

What other game is honestly trying to improve its community via science?

Sounds a bit bogus to me. Surely the fact that the team is winning will mean that people are less likely to rage, producing the correlation between winning and non-raging? In other words the devs have it backwards.

Give dev's some credit, they are looking at TOTAL winning records of players who are considered ragers/vs non-ragers. So what you say while true is irrelevant to their point.

There's one measure that few have introduced that would seem obvious. Match both on rating and "likeability" based on a simply "did you enjoy playing with this person" at the end of each match (statistics will even out those who like or hate everybody).

Ragers would tend to get matched with ragers and people who are a delight to have on the team would be matched with the same. What better reward for acting like a grown-up could you ask for?

Surely LoL has a large enough base to support matching on more than just rating without having to make players wait for a long time.

(The only reason I can think of to avoid this is it might cause too many ragers to quit, impacting revenues.)

To be honest, in 14 years of playing online (PC only), I have never experienced a game with more ragers than LoL. I don't get it; is it something about this game? I haven't played it myself; I had no interest in it after seeing my clan torn apart by the behavior this game spawned.

I think its the time commitment involved, which is huge for the medium. A 30 or 45 minute match in which constant attention is required for victory? In most multiplayer games you can drop and have someone replace you, or you attentiveness can vary (I'm thinking as a Rogue player in WoW). LoL is like being a healer in a 25 man raid in WoW, only everyone has that amount of responsibility, and there's a very good chance that few if any of your fellow players are ready for it.

LMAO, time commitment? 30-40 min? HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When I was 13 I used to play 4 hour long matches of C&C Tiberian Sun. Currently, I play COD BLOPS2 zombies. 4 player co-op FPS games that last anywhere from 3-8 hours per match. The only breaks you get are when someone is kind enough to hold a zombie at the end of a round. Even then there is a good chance they lose track of it or it respawns and kills you before you get back from the bathroom or smoke break or whatever. Ive never played a game like it. One mistake and 3 or 4 hours worth of gameplay are gone and wasted. No saves, no restarts. One idiot who wont listen or does his own thing and you might as well not even play. There are rage quitters, but nothing like Ive heard of in LoL. I have a feeling it is not so much the time commitment involved as it is the type of person that is drawn to that type of game, just happens to be the type to rage as well, more often then others.

Anyone who uses "LMAO" and "HAHAHAHAHAHAH" in all caps, and brags about playing 8 hours of CoD zombies to disparage people who play MOBAs is that guy.

(Hint: Playing 8 hours of CoD zombies is not an accomplishment, it's not something to brag about or be proud of).

To be honest, in 14 years of playing online (PC only), I have never experienced a game with more ragers than LoL. I don't get it; is it something about this game? I haven't played it myself; I had no interest in it after seeing my clan torn apart by the behavior this game spawned.

I think its the time commitment involved, which is huge for the medium. A 30 or 45 minute match in which constant attention is required for victory? In most multiplayer games you can drop and have someone replace you, or you attentiveness can vary (I'm thinking as a Rogue player in WoW). LoL is like being a healer in a 25 man raid in WoW, only everyone has that amount of responsibility, and there's a very good chance that few if any of your fellow players are ready for it.

LMAO, time commitment? 30-40 min? HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When I was 13 I used to play 4 hour long matches of C&C Tiberian Sun. Currently, I play COD BLOPS2 zombies. 4 player co-op FPS games that last anywhere from 3-8 hours per match. The only breaks you get are when someone is kind enough to hold a zombie at the end of a round. Even then there is a good chance they lose track of it or it respawns and kills you before you get back from the bathroom or smoke break or whatever. Ive never played a game like it. One mistake and 3 or 4 hours worth of gameplay are gone and wasted. No saves, no restarts. One idiot who wont listen or does his own thing and you might as well not even play. There are rage quitters, but nothing like Ive heard of in LoL. I have a feeling it is not so much the time commitment involved as it is the type of person that is drawn to that type of game, just happens to be the type to rage as well, more often then others.

Anyone who uses "LMAO" and "HAHAHAHAHAHAH" in all caps, and brags about playing 8 hours of CoD zombies to disparage people who play MOBAs is that guy.

(Hint: Playing 8 hours of CoD zombies is not an accomplishment, it's not something to brag about or be proud of).

If you strip out all the random crap and bragging, he does actually have a point; 30-40 minutes is not a huge time commitment when looked at comparatively with similar online games. For most people (even ones with jobs and families) 30-40 minutes is nothing. It takes more time to watch an episode of Game of Thrones, an activity in which you do nothing at all.

I'd have to say this is probably the best study I've seen related to videogames in...ever. The correlation between moods, teamwork and win rate within MOBAs has been there since DotA 1, hell, since any cooperative effort in the history of man.

Fact of the matter is, if you have a teammate who's doing badly in a game, they're probably doing badly because they're either not skilled at their hero/champion, or because their cries for help are legitimate - they need help in lane because the matchup isn't fair. (This is often the case; some lane combinations are stunningly powerful.) In either case, bringing out a third scenario - telling them they're never going to improve, and that they should uninstall the game - is not going to help them learn quickly enough to make them fix the problem and let you win the game.

That's simply logic right there. Not only does helping them let you win the game, but it allows them the chance to learn from the mistake they already made - which will make them win games later.

Finally, if you yourself didn't make a mistake, then what are you going to learn from a loss caused by your teammate screwing up plus your own ignoring of them? That you should be a NICE PERSON.

To be honest, in 14 years of playing online (PC only), I have never experienced a game with more ragers than LoL. I don't get it; is it something about this game? I haven't played it myself; I had no interest in it after seeing my clan torn apart by the behavior this game spawned.

I think its the time commitment involved, which is huge for the medium. A 30 or 45 minute match in which constant attention is required for victory? In most multiplayer games you can drop and have someone replace you, or you attentiveness can vary (I'm thinking as a Rogue player in WoW). LoL is like being a healer in a 25 man raid in WoW, only everyone has that amount of responsibility, and there's a very good chance that few if any of your fellow players are ready for it.

LMAO, time commitment? 30-40 min? HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When I was 13 I used to play 4 hour long matches of C&C Tiberian Sun. Currently, I play COD BLOPS2 zombies. 4 player co-op FPS games that last anywhere from 3-8 hours per match. The only breaks you get are when someone is kind enough to hold a zombie at the end of a round. Even then there is a good chance they lose track of it or it respawns and kills you before you get back from the bathroom or smoke break or whatever. Ive never played a game like it. One mistake and 3 or 4 hours worth of gameplay are gone and wasted. No saves, no restarts. One idiot who wont listen or does his own thing and you might as well not even play. There are rage quitters, but nothing like Ive heard of in LoL. I have a feeling it is not so much the time commitment involved as it is the type of person that is drawn to that type of game, just happens to be the type to rage as well, more often then others.

Anyone who uses "LMAO" and "HAHAHAHAHAHAH" in all caps, and brags about playing 8 hours of CoD zombies to disparage people who play MOBAs is that guy.

(Hint: Playing 8 hours of CoD zombies is not an accomplishment, it's not something to brag about or be proud of).

If you strip out all the random crap and bragging, he does actually have a point; 30-40 minutes is not a huge time commitment when looked at comparatively with similar online games. For most people (even ones with jobs and families) 30-40 minutes is nothing. It takes more time to watch an episode of Game of Thrones, an activity in which you do nothing at all.

A 30-40 minute activity in which you do nothing at all is not hard to do. A 30-40 minute activity in which you are constantly being judged and tested by 9 other people, an activity you cannot leave for fear of reprisal, an activity which can become particularly nasty if things go bad early on, is much worse than anything anyone in this thread has described.

The big deal here is that LoL and DOTA are games where the basic, non-e-sport version of the game requires a huge amount of coordination between five people who have nothing better to do with their time than play MOBA. You play Starcraft 2 and decide you want to drop? First, you're probably playing 1v1, and second, you can drop off and accept a hit to your rank. The consequences of dropping are just bad to yourself.

To be honest, in 14 years of playing online (PC only), I have never experienced a game with more ragers than LoL. I don't get it; is it something about this game? I haven't played it myself; I had no interest in it after seeing my clan torn apart by the behavior this game spawned.

I think its the time commitment involved, which is huge for the medium. A 30 or 45 minute match in which constant attention is required for victory? In most multiplayer games you can drop and have someone replace you, or you attentiveness can vary (I'm thinking as a Rogue player in WoW). LoL is like being a healer in a 25 man raid in WoW, only everyone has that amount of responsibility, and there's a very good chance that few if any of your fellow players are ready for it.

LMAO, time commitment? 30-40 min? HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When I was 13 I used to play 4 hour long matches of C&C Tiberian Sun. Currently, I play COD BLOPS2 zombies. 4 player co-op FPS games that last anywhere from 3-8 hours per match. The only breaks you get are when someone is kind enough to hold a zombie at the end of a round. Even then there is a good chance they lose track of it or it respawns and kills you before you get back from the bathroom or smoke break or whatever. Ive never played a game like it. One mistake and 3 or 4 hours worth of gameplay are gone and wasted. No saves, no restarts. One idiot who wont listen or does his own thing and you might as well not even play. There are rage quitters, but nothing like Ive heard of in LoL. I have a feeling it is not so much the time commitment involved as it is the type of person that is drawn to that type of game, just happens to be the type to rage as well, more often then others.

Anyone who uses "LMAO" and "HAHAHAHAHAHAH" in all caps, and brags about playing 8 hours of CoD zombies to disparage people who play MOBAs is that guy.

(Hint: Playing 8 hours of CoD zombies is not an accomplishment, it's not something to brag about or be proud of).

If you strip out all the random crap and bragging, he does actually have a point; 30-40 minutes is not a huge time commitment when looked at comparatively with similar online games. For most people (even ones with jobs and families) 30-40 minutes is nothing. It takes more time to watch an episode of Game of Thrones, an activity in which you do nothing at all.

A 30-40 minute activity in which you do nothing at all is not hard to do. A 30-40 minute activity in which you are constantly being judged and tested by 9 other people, an activity you cannot leave for fear of reprisal, an activity which can become particularly nasty if things go bad early on, is much worse than anything anyone in this thread has described.

The big deal here is that LoL and DOTA are games where the basic, non-e-sport version of the game requires a huge amount of coordination between five people who have nothing better to do with their time than play MOBA. You play Starcraft 2 and decide you want to drop? First, you're probably playing 1v1, and second, you can drop off and accept a hit to your rank. The consequences of dropping are just bad to yourself.

It's only bad if you care what random, faceless, Internet people think Seriously, this is the best example I've ever seen of the downside to social networking sites and online gaming.

Sounds a bit bogus to me. Surely the fact that the team is winning will mean that people are less likely to rage, producing the correlation between winning and non-raging? In other words the devs have it backwards.

How can it not, raging has a direct correlation to morale of the team. Cooperation and teamwork will obviously create a better atmosphere for your team and if you rage and it effects anyone, especially lower skill players and yourself, then you are most likely disrupt that key factor to winning. If you don't think cooperation and teamwork will help you win a game then idk, that seems bogus to me.

No, it's the other way round. Team morale has a direct correlation to raging: ragers don't rage when they're winning, only when they're losing.

I've experienced plenty of ragers even when our team was winning. Also it's common sense that if you're more calm, then you'll be more focused on playing the game, which directly corralates into better play, which increases your chances of winning. People just give up much too easily in LoL. The really neat thing about LoL is that you almost always have a chance of bringing yourself back from a very disadvantagous position to an advantagous one as long as you're careful with your play and your team is communicating effectively.

And thats the summary to it. Snowballing happens whether you have ragers or not in your team (and is included in the win statistics). However, for close contests, a team that is cooperative and communicative can slowly edge their way ahead (or simply win a crucial fight. ie baron) and win the game.

An 8% difference may seem small compared to the overall win rate, but if you exclude romps/snowballing, an 8% edge could be a massive statistical improvement. Incidentally, here in Australia, we just had an election. A 4% swing was basically a romp (once you exclude out the partisan voters that will ALWAYS vote for their party)

The causation vs. correlation arguments don't make much sense to me. This is not rocket science. Look at a subset of players that generally exemplify bad behaviour under all circumstances, not just when they're losing, and compare them to their polar opposites - players who remain calm and polite even in the face of defeat. If there's a statistically significant discrepancy between their win/loss ratios, it seems like a reasonable conclusion that the attitude of the player has an impact on the outcome, provided that no other common denominator pops up that could explain the difference.

Not sure why this was posted as news here. It's a glorified advertisement for LoL.

Yeah. A game with players so obnoxious their obnoxiousness has to be studied with the (apparently vain) hope of minimizing it? That's some compelling ad copy. Sign me up.

If this study reflects badly on LoL then why would Riot release the results? It's pretty obvious that this IS an advertisement. It advertises that Riot is actively pursuing methods to improve the quality of life for their player base, something that Valve/S2 have not publicly shown.

The causation vs. correlation arguments don't make much sense to me. This is not rocket science. Look at a subset of players that generally exemplify bad behaviour under all circumstances, not just when they're losing, and compare them to their polar opposites - players who remain calm and polite even in the face of defeat. If there's a statistically significant discrepancy between their win/loss ratios, it seems like a reasonable conclusion that the attitude of the player has an impact on the outcome, provided that no other common denominator pops up that could explain the difference.

People who lose a lot of games get irritated. Irritated people behave badly. That, right there, destroys the causation argument they're trying to make.

I gave up on LoL due to the harsh learning curve with the community, but in WoT you see similar things. If you start the match and a few lights suicide, or you get a team killer, it just kills the game. If you have a loose organization, the match can swing rapidly in your favor. Obviously the tanks in play and the map and player skill play some part, but a little communication goes a long way in winning matches.

Not sure why this was posted as news here. It's a glorified advertisement for LoL.

Yeah. A game with players so obnoxious their obnoxiousness has to be studied with the (apparently vain) hope of minimizing it? That's some compelling ad copy. Sign me up.

If this study reflects badly on LoL then why would Riot release the results? It's pretty obvious that this IS an advertisement. It advertises that Riot is actively pursuing methods to improve the quality of life for their player base, something that Valve/S2 have not publicly shown.

The causation vs. correlation arguments don't make much sense to me. This is not rocket science. Look at a subset of players that generally exemplify bad behaviour under all circumstances, not just when they're losing, and compare them to their polar opposites - players who remain calm and polite even in the face of defeat. If there's a statistically significant discrepancy between their win/loss ratios, it seems like a reasonable conclusion that the attitude of the player has an impact on the outcome, provided that no other common denominator pops up that could explain the difference.

People who lose a lot of games get irritated. Irritated people behave badly. That, right there, destroys the causation argument they're trying to make.

Keep in mind that we're talking about players with hundreds or even thousands of games under their belt and win-loss ratios that differentiate by a few percent, not about players who lose all the time vs. players who win all the time. The ranking algorithms are in place to keep that from happening.

The way I interpret this article: you have player pool A that you know engages in toxic behaviour, based on their track record of reports, chat logs, rage quits etc. etc.. and group B that doesn't. You know that the more players from group A end up in the same game, the less likely they are to win.

So what you're telling me is that players in group A do not lose because they're bad team players, but rather they're bad team players because they lose slightly more than those who play nice with others? Like that one more victory or loss in every ten games you play, means the difference between acting like a dick and being polite?

I used to play the game, solo with custom games only with bots...but they took that option out this past patch to where you don't get any IP points or experience now from solo games.

The reason I only play solo is that 90% of every human player I've played with on LoL have been reprehensible human beings. I mean, it's suppose to be fun, right? But every game I've played with others usually has someone yelling at everyone else and when you get someone telling me to "go kill myself" because I didn't get to a lane fast enough...well, then it's not really a fun game to me.

Now, why did I only play solo games besides that? It was like solitaire to me. Was nice, relaxing, solo play. I even spent money with Riot to by RP points a few times, so it's not like Riot wasn't making any money off of me. But now, the game is dead to me as I'll always be stuck at level 26, not gaining any IP points so I can't get new characters I can goof around with or points to buy more upgrades etc.

Oh well, guess there are other games out there. But them changing this will never get me to ever play with other people on that service. Seriously, they are the worst bunch of idiots I've ever seen. It's not fun to me, it's not something I can just "ignore" and "don't let it bother you". It's stressful and not at all fun...so why would I want to subject myself to that?

You should play coop-vs-ai with some of arsians; we're pretty chill, ya know. (PM me if you want to, I can always join you for a game.)

I have been in games with some very skilled (or just very fed) assholes who manage to win even as they're screaming obscenities at the rest of the team. I usually ignore them and just observe the map to decide where to go and what to do.

But by far the most successful teams I've been on start even before the match is loading: civility in choosing characters, lanes, etc, is a good sign to me that we'll probably end up winning.

I agree that the biggest threat to any team is its own members. It doesn't surprise me that teams that focus more on the game and your team's strategy tend to win more than focusing on your team's failures. I play DotA instead of LoL, but I think much of the same applies.

BTW: I am a friendly player and try to only play with other friendly players that don't stress out on the game too much. If you are interested in teaming up for a bot match or whatever let me know! (PM's work good)

Sounds a bit bogus to me. Surely the fact that the team is winning will mean that people are less likely to rage, producing the correlation between winning and non-raging? In other words the devs have it backwards.

Exactly this. I've never played a game where the winning team is raging.

I've been in plenty of games where the winning team had raging members. Your team doesn't have to be losing for someone to start raging that another player is a n00b, is building their character wrong, should quit playing, should feed less, took the character/role they wanted, or any number of other things. Often in these cases, the team wins in spite of the raging member (who may /ragequit, /afk, or intentionally feed), because they manage to ignore the raging member and/or support the member being screamed at.

A lot of PvP matches can be or are decided before the match ends. I lost track of how many time in a World of Warcraft PvP match someone would start complaining as soon as the other team got one point more then us. Then to rest of the team jumps on. And that is when match was lost. It doesn't matter how much time there is on the clock.

Remember that defeatist attutude the alliance had? Care to guess how many PvP matches were lost before they started because of it? I wouldn't. Its likely in the thousands.

This is exactly why you see sports teams doing their team chants on the sidelines or in the locker rooms. They know winning starts with the right frame of mind. Ragers and trolls don't have it or want it.

This is so annoyingly true of Alliance PvP. I did a lot of PvP on Horde, but played both sides. When I'd hop into an Alliance PvP match, I'd be wondering why the team was quitting halfway through the match, and trying to rally them was rarely useful unless I could also pull off some insane stunt. Most of the time they'd quit while winning, just because they thought the match had gone too long and they couldn't possibly be winning if the match didn't end before the ten minute mark. On Horde, it was typical that the entire team was convinced we were winning and deserved to win, even while down 2-0 in Warsong and the Alliance had our flag in their base, and if by some miracle the Alliance actually won at such a disadvantage, it must have been a fluke.

Sounds a bit bogus to me. Surely the fact that the team is winning will mean that people are less likely to rage, producing the correlation between winning and non-raging? In other words the devs have it backwards.

individuals with good/positive attitudes in teams with positive attitude can overcome a lot more than rage quitters and rageaholics.

You see this in MMORPG group dynamics. the groups who pass/overcome content have a higher tolerance of failure. What they won't tolerate is not trying.

Even getting into random PUGs for dungeons you can see this at work. Even a single rage quitter will stall completion; but a group with individuals that's willing to have a go at it again have a higher success rate. I've only been in one PUG group that has failed the content despite trying over and over again - that's because the content was designed for highly coordinated guilds, not PUGs.

You can get into PUGS with ppl who don't know the content and succeed just because the individual mentality is overall one of "can-do" spirit.